' This order will dispose of two petitions, Writ Petitions No, 1919/1976 and No, 1920/1976 since the facts and point of law in both these cases are common.
2. The petitioners in the two cases were granted lease of the land described in pars. 1 of each petition, for 15 years on the 31st of May, 1971 on assumption of their being cultivators in the year 1969-70. On the 5th of December, 1974 more than three years after the tenancy, their allotments were cancelled by the Collector on the ground that initially they were not qualified to the grant on 15 years lease since they were not cultivators in the year 1969-70. These orders were set aside in appeal on the 9th of April, 1975 since according to the learned Additional Commissioner the Collector did not consider the contentions of the petitioners. Both the cases were, therefore, remanded to the Collector. In post remand proceedings the Collector again cancelled the allotment on the same grounds by orders dated 7-8-1975. The petitioners filed appeals before the Additional Commissioner, but they were dismissed on the 3rd of December, 1975 on a technical objection that copies of the impugned orders had not been filed along with memoranda of appeal.
The learned Additional Commissioner, however, left it to the petitioners to file appeals again, if so advised, after obtaining the copies. Such appeals were filed, but they were rejected as barred by limitation on the 17th of March, 1976. The petitioners filed revision petitions before the Board of Revenue, but the same were dismissed on the 13th of May, 1976. It was held by the Board of Revenue that although both the petitioners had been in cultivating possession in the year 1969-70, but this cultivation was illegal. The Member, Board of Revenue referred to the letter of the Board of Revenue by which it was directed that only those cultivators will be qualified to the grant of 15 years lease whose cultivation in 1969-70 was legal.
3. On the 22nd of July, 1976 I found that this finding was unexceptionable. However, the learned counsel relied upon the provisions of section 16 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab)
Act in support of his plea that after the expiry of three years period from the date of tenancy the allotment or tenancy of the petitioners cannot be resumed on ground of their initial disqualification.
4. This section reads as follows :- "16. False Information by a tenant.-If any person who after the commencement of this Act has been put in possession of land in a colony as a tenant shall have given false information intending or having reason to believe that any servant of the State may be thereby deceived regarding his qualifications to become a tenant, he shall be deemed to have committed a breach of the conditions of his tenancy t ' Provided that this section shall not apply to persons who have been in possession of a tenancy for more than three years or to any person who has acquired a right of ownership."
5. It is clear from the facts of the case that the resumption orders have been passed against the petitioners simply on the ground that they had give false information to the Public Servants and deceived them regarding their qualifications to become a tenant, although in fact they did not possess such qualifications. This is certainly a breach of condition of tenancy under section 16, but the proviso comes to the succor of the petitioners, since it makes the main provision inapplicable to persons who have been in possession of a tenancy for more than three years. If it is once held that the petitioners have been in possession of the tenancy for more than three years on the date when the initial order of cancellation was passed, it will follow that the petitioners' tenancy could not be resumed on ground of their initial disqualification. Acquisition of tenancy rights notwithstanding disqualification is breach of condition only during the first three years of the tenancy. It ceases to be such breach after the expiry of the above period. This finds support from some observations in Shahab Din v. Member Board of Revenue (Colonies), Lahore (1). In that case reliance was placed upon this section by the tenants under the Ejected Tenants Scheme whose tenancy was similarly resumed on the ground that they were initially ineligible to the grant. While it was held that the provisions of this section could not be invoked by the petitioner in that case for the reason that he had not been in possession of the tenancy for more than three years for the reason that the tenancy of 1956-57 and 1958 was an yearly tenancy, it was observed that "it seems to us that the proviso would come into play in the case of a tenancy whose term extends to three years or more, not to yearly tenancy which have to be renewed from year to year and which come to an end if not renewed.
7. These observations that section 16 will apply to cases of tenancies for three years duration or more support the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are clearly protected by this section. The orders of cancellation of their allotment dated 7-8-1975 and the subsequent orders passed in appeal and revision are, therefore, declared to be without lawful authority. Since this point does not appear to have been taken or urged before the authorities, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
(1) PLD 1964 Leh. 372 revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.